First a little update on the issue I brought up before leaving on vacation, and that is seemingly perverse economic incentives in the U.S. Many policies used to stimulate the economy are often not good for the environment. The issue is about housing and how housing prices have shot up a bit and new building is up as well in markets like Phoenix, Las Vegas, South Florida, and Southern California. Now the New York Times is also exploring the recent housing recovery, highlighting the fact that investors are buying up property and driving up prices, while regular folks are getting priced out (in some spots). Environmentally speaking, with over 12 million vacant housing units in the country (which is considered a very low estimate by some analysts), there should be plenty of housing for everyone that needs it, thus making it unnecessary to pave over more land for more sprawl. What does everyone else think about the national policy of incentivizing more house-building, even though there is a huge glut of empty houses on the market? Good? Bad? Not sure?

As an aside, another negative side effect of increasing sprawl is the increased chance of intense flooding in urban areas. A lesson learned in Europe recently, is that if you take away much of the natural landscape (like swamps and marshland), then most of the rain water will just run off and create flooding.

Another incentivized activity in the U.S. (and many places around the world) is the production of biofuel. In the U.S. this is mostly corn or grain ethanol. I have written many times in the past about how this does not seem to be a worthwhile national pursuit and something I witnessed recently really cemented that feeling. It was slashing and burning of forests, here in Wisconsin. It is something that is always talked about in “other countries” and it is often regarded as a bad practice for the environment. I saw the large forest being slashed and burned along highway 29 the last time I travelled to western Wisconsin. I am amazed at how much land is being cleared in the last couple of years to make way for corn fields. Once again, I have to mention that I don’t hold farmers responsible. They are just trying to earn a living. They own the land. They can decide how to use it. I do have to question the wisdom of national policy-makers.

Slashing and burning on a small scale will not be too disruptive in Wisconsin, but all of the former grassland and forestland that is being converted to grain production is bound to have an effect over time. One thing that is being affected is bee-keeping. Bee Colony Collapse Disorder is still somewhat of a mystery, but chemicals (pesticides and herbicides) and destruction of habitat (due to urban sprawl and the ethanol mandate) are leading candidates for the recent surge in bee population declines. Yet another reason to perhaps move away from ethanol (gas) burning engines in cars (and toward electric vehicles), is that higher levels of metals (from exhaust) can interfere with bee metabolism and reproduction.

Have a nice Friday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Ecology, Pollution

As promised, today I will share some thoughts and pictures from my recent trip to the desert – Phoenix. I would talk a little more about hurricane Sandy, but Rob already did a great job in yesterday’s blog entry and it is dominating all media coverage already on TV, cable, radio, Internet, newspapers, so maybe this will be a little reprieve. The most interesting aspect of Sandy on our weather is that it will prevent many changes here in Wisconsin. The big storm along the east coast is clogging up the flow of weather across the U.S. and that means what we have now will linger for a few more days. High will be in the 40s, low will be in the 20s, and we will have partly or mostly sunny skies.

Phoenix at night, a river of light (traffic) stretches out miles into the distance

What about Phoenix? I have been there three times and unfortunately I am less impressed every time, because it gets bigger, hotter, more polluted, and less distinct every time. It is a classic “sprawling environmental disaster” – a term I use more frequently nowadays to describe cities in the U.S. It seems in the past there was some consideration as to the aesthetic of the cities we live in. People wanted buildings to look unique. Citizens were more involved in the planning process to make sure the city had a heart. Downtowns were dynamic,  alive, and vibrant and the neighborhoods were cleaner and quieter. During the last couple of decades and especially during the housing boom after 2001, planning took a back seat to laying as much pavement, building as many subdivisions, and erecting as many stripmalls as possible. In the sense that people end up with what they really want, then sprawling environmental disasters must have some purpose.

Looking out the hotel window: cars and pavement

Maybe I am just an old stick in the mud, proposing that denser, smarter, more aesthetic cities (and conversely, a less developed countryside with more open natural space or room for farming) would be a better way to go.

Before anyone jumps in to defend Phoenix, realize that I have used the term “sprawling environmental disaster” for most of the cities I have visited. Cities in flyover country (including here in Wisconsin) have spread far out into the farmland and forestland. L.A. is probably worse than Phoenix, and they would probably admit to it, having the traffic and pollution numbers to back it up. The Chicago metropolis is bigger than Phoenix but it does have a more unique and traditional downtown area. The knock on Phoenix is that there isn’t much of a downtown. There isn’t much structure to the city.

Typical scenery in Phoenix

An endless repetition of small office centers, stripmalls, gas stations, freeways, and subdivisions stretch out into the horizon, no matter what direction you are traveling. In some ways, the layout does make sense. Phoenix is a big retirement area. People move there and want to live in a quiet clean neighborhood, not a bustling downtown.

Because of the nature of the community (a lot of retirees), there are some great golf courses, some wealthy enclaves with beautiful houses, and some upscale shopping. You will find some pockets of art as well. Another positive of the city is that they do grow a lot of urban trees. There are not a lot of parks but the city and region does maintain a good number of trees, which does take some effort in the desert. I might talk negative about Phoenix from an environmental perspective, but I would definitely consider it an option for “snow-bird” type retirement.

More typical Phoenix scenery

Of course it is hot down there. Residents around Phoenix say the Summer in the valley of the sun is similar to Winter in Wisconsin – everyone just stays indoors for about 4 months. If you do not have access to air conditioning, you could die – literally. And here is where the sprawl comes into play. A smarter city with less pavement, traffic, and sprawl, would reduce the heat island effect. Instead of baking in 110 to 120 during the peak of Summer, Phoenix residents would more routinely have 105 to 110 degree high temps during the hottest time of year. It would make a big difference.

What would also make a big difference is more alternative energy and this is another positive aspect about the Phoenix area. They do have more solar installation than the rest of the nation, but it is still a very small portion of their energy picture.

Kudos to the owner of this building with solar panels

I saw about one or two buildings with solar panels about  every large city block. I asked a resident of Phoenix why more people don’t have solar panels, since it is such a sunny place. He gave the same answer as most people – it is too expensive. I told him that the payback on solar powered exhaust fans and solar heated water are much quicker than for solar panel installations designed to power the house. He said he would look into it because the third floor of his house was always uncomfortably hot even with the AC running full blast.

Many thanks to all the people who left comments in the blog a while back about some of the most value-oriented options for solar power! I am looking into some of these options. Spreading the word is good!

A cool picture of clouds and the airplane engine looking out the window.

Like many other cities, Phoenix is in an infrastructure trap. The infrastructure cost of maintaining the sprawl is getting to be a large burden. The tax base has shrunk because housing prices have gone down dramatically. I am sure they would love to redesign some things, maybe put in some more passenger rail or have more efficient dense living space downtown, but that costs a lot of money as well. Contraction or re-design might only come after bankruptcy or default. That is what is happening in Spain. Like the U.S., Spain had a housing and infrastructure boom/bust. They built some of the best highways in Europe. They intended to help pay for the highways through tolls, which is usually a very smart (and fair) move. Unfortunately, the economy in Spain has crashed so far that the “highways” are now bankrupt. No one is driving the new roads and paying tolls. Spain did build some high speed train lines during the boom, and I think they should keep those open and try to save them. The trains are new and more efficient. They should just tear up the highways when they fall into disrepair.

Many demographic and social trends are pointing away from “the car” anyway. It would be a waste of money to continue building up more expensive highways. I even wonder about the wisdom of expanding the roads here in Wausau. If the history of other cities in the U.S. is any guide, building more highways only increases traffic, congestion, and pollution. Interesting to note, our news department has an feature story coming up about how younger generations are not as enthused about getting a car as older generations were. I have written about this in the blog before (rentership society). The reasons have to do with cost and connections. Cars (and their operating expenses) get more expensive every year. Younger generations are also more connected because of the Internet. They can see each other, talk, work, earn a living, and play games, all without leaving the house.

Have a nice Monday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment, Pollution, Travel

A while back I penned a blog entry titled “Housing Starts Are Negative“. My contention was that it is not a negative thing if new home construction is going down. Basing our economy and measure of “progress” on how much stuff we build is not a good practice. The sprawl of infrastructure is probably not sustainable. People and the environment would probably be better off if we measured progress by how efficient we live, how healthy we are, and how happy we feel.

So today it is reported that “Housing Starts Are Positive“, which of course I view as something negative for society as a whole. We already have well over 10 million empty homes on the landscape in the U.S. Why were 872,000 new units built last month?! I suppose some of the houses are being built in areas that truly need houses, but those locales would seem to be minor in the total calculation, considering the current unemployment rate and general economic malaise.

Now, I understand the desire to build your own home. It is possible that I might do that in the future as well. If some dirt cheap land near town becomes available, I might put up a house. In such a case, I would prefer to buy a beaten up old home and remodel, or tear it down and build something better on the same space. I would definitely want to keep energy efficiency in mind.

Even though I rail against some trends in society like building more houses (which cause more sprawl), I want to remind everyone that I would never try to FORCE people to NOT build homes. I would never vote for laws that would stop home-building (for what-ever reason). I don’t like to see so much sprawl and pavement out in the countryside that used to be beautiful and green, but private property is an important human right. Thus, I only try to persuade people to not build if it is not necessary, to considering having a smaller family, to try alternative energy or electric vehicles. With 872,000 homes being built last month, I don’t think I am terribly persuasive so far.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Environment

And the good news keeps rolling in! Yesterday I discussed a recent study showing a decrease in carbon emissions during recessions and reminded everyone of how the U.S. emissions are the lowest in 20 years! The tone of the study was pessimistic, preaching to everyone that we are still screwed (wrong for multiple reasons) even if the recession continues, which – by TRADITIONAL metrics - is quite likely….because…. the birth rate in most of the world continues to decline, including in the U.S. In fact, the birth rate in the U.S. in 2011 hit an ALL TIME LOW of 1.9 per woman!

The article I linked to paints this in a negative light. Don’t fall for it. This is great news in most regards – especially for the environment and for future generations. Hear me out here.

Sprawling Freeways in the U.S.

The negative spin on the low birthrate is that social/government programs (in developed nations) such as Social Security/retirement, Healthcare, various forms of government “insurance” will suffer. Why is this? Because in a very ponzi-like manner, these systems and government programs were designed upon the idea that the economy will grow forever because the population will grow forever. We tried that. We filled the world with people and pollution (worse pollution in some areas, getting better in others). In the U.S. we built huge sprawling environmental disasters we call cities with pavement, freeways, McMansions, power lines, gas stations, and strip malls as far as the eye can see. It is most likely that we over-built. Now 10 of millions of houses, office spaces, and retail spaces sit empty and rotting. We can barely pay for our infrastructure anymore. Some people say we are losing that battle.

So for a nation OVER $16 trillion in debt, with way too much far-flung expensive infrastructure, with basic commodities (even water) becoming more scarce and expensive, why would we want a population explosion? Just to build, buy, and consume more crap in order to fulfill some archaic economic models and support too-big-to-fail banks?

Poorly Built Urban Sprawl in Brazil

As I have mentioned many times before, if we start defining “growth” more along the lines of health, happiness, and efficiency, we will be much better off. We can still take care of the people who need support and were trapped into dependency. Focusing on the community and a future NOT defined by consumption, is a better way forward, in my opinion.

Population growth is slowing. Many people will try to tell you this is a bad thing. They have an agenda. Building more stuff and having more children just for the sake of economic “growth” is a 20th century idea. The world is crowded enough. It is the 21st century. Time to start thinking differently.

Have a pleasant Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Community, Environment, Pollution

I am amazed sometimes how a confluence of events, information, and opinion can perfectly illustrate some ideas I have been promulgating for some time now. In fact, I am a bit jealous of other writers who pull these same ideas into a more concise package, but more on that later.

The initial article that brought the opposing themes of environmental sustainability and economic growth into to focus for me was this one: California is exploring the idea of taxing driving. They are studying whether or not they could use GPS units to track your movements and then tax you by the mile. If you are like me, you probably recoiled in horror at the idea, not only from a government intrusion standpoint but from a tax aversion standpoint. Is there nothing that is off limits from government taxation?

It won’t work. It sounds plausible. It sounds similar to a toll road - writ large. At least people who use the roads would be paying for them, right? If California bureaucrats are hoping to garner increasing revenue to plug holes in ailing infrastructure or in the state budget, they will be sorely disappointed.

Vast American Freeways

A tax on driving will only ensure that people will drive less. It is unlikely the tax would generate long term surpluses and the roads they would like to fix with the money will not have as many drivers. Perhaps the ultimate goal is to force people onto public transportation. Maybe they will not repair the roads and replace the mega freeways with high speed rail? I don’t think the California leaders are that smart or visionary. They just want the money. If they were really committed to other modes of transportation, they would just tear up I-5 as they built tracks for the proposed high speed rail line from LA to Sacramento and eventually to San Francisco – telling everyone to just deal with it. Just think how much quicker and cheaper the high speed rail could be built on land that has already been confiscated by the government (for the freeway, I-5)! Instead, in typical wasteful government fashion, they are going to spend billions on the high speed rail (maybe – if the state doesn’t go bankrupt first), and billions more maintaining the freeway system. Even more productive and beautiful land will succumb to expansion and “growth”.

It is similar to the situation around much of the nation, and we have a recent example right here in Northcentral Wisconsin. The highway 10 project from Marshfield to Stevens Point was completed just this week. I understand how this will make life a lot easier for people commuting between the 2 cities. I understand how it will make traffic better. I understand that many people reading this blog will love the new connection (just like when highway 29 was completed). But I don’t like it. If you disagree, that is what the comment section is for.

I used to think more along the lines of bigger is better, a new road means progress, commerce expands, but through the years I have come around to a different view.

America - Full of Empty Strip Malls

Cities used to be distinctive. Roads used to be scenic. The population was small enough to not cause problems. Now things are different. Cities have sprawled out of control. Whereas most of a city’s activity used to occur near or in the center, it is now dispersed. Parking lots, gas stations, freeways, subdivisions, strip malls, and box stores, subsume the landscape miles away from the city, where cows and deer used to roam. More roads have only brought more traffic and accelerates unsustainable sprawl (as I detailed in The Contrete Life,  ponzi infrastructure, and Road Construction Always Increases). Sprawling networks of roads and support of automobile infrastructure is also why we are turning food (corn) into fuel and burning it.

Now we have a new highway 10, but really we have 2 highway 10s. Now double the amount of productive farmland has become victim to “progress”. The new highway 10 takes up even more land than the old highway 10. The cost of maintaining the new highway 10 will be more than maintaining the old highway 10. Another road means more future orange barrel delays. It would be interesting to know if a passenger rail service could have been built to serve the two cities (Marshfield and Stevens Point) for a cost of 250 million or less (the cost of the new highway). The tracks (or at least the lines) already exist between the two cities. Could new track for faster passenger trains have been laid for the same cost? It is already to the point in this country that we cannot maintain our infrastructure. Why do we keep adding more roads?

We are wedded to the car. That is why. It is often said that Americans love their cars. I don’t. When such a large nation and economy is moving in one direction, building and designing its entire society around the automobile, it is hard to change course. Many of you reading this probably cannot “get your head around” how we could ever change things and how we could ever drop the automobile like a bad habit. Well, the good news is that younger generations and developing nations are doing it for us.

One of criticisms I have of Peak Oil and AGW predictions, is that they are quite wedded to the idea that younger generations and developing nations are going to follow the same path as past generations in the U.S. and build ugly parking lots, strip malls, and vast freeways. China and India are trying but failing. Younger generations all over the world are not wedded to the car. The Internet infrastructure is what matters more. They can connect with friends, family, and work without driving. Instead of driving to the store, they order online and take advantage of the economies of scale surrounding shipping and manufacturing. They like the city center more than past generations. They understand the financial and emotional trap that can develop around the ownership of several cars and a McMansion out in the burbs. I could go on, but I will leave you with an article that does a much better job of stitching together many of the themes I have populated these pages with piece-meal through the years. It is entitled the Demise of the Car. It is a longer read, but well worth your time.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Climate Change, Peak Oil, Pollution

Another week has passed and we have another US Drought Monitor update. There has been some significant rain in some drought-stricken areas, including southern Wisconsin and southern Minnesota but it has not shown up in the Drought Monitor. This is because the tabulation of drought conditions is based upon several factors, not just what happened in the past week, but how much precipitation occurred in the past month, in the past three months, how much moisture is in the soil, water levels in streams and rivers, etc… With several rounds of rain occurring in southern Wisconsin in the past week and potentially again next week, I think we will see the extreme drought subside in southern Wisconsin. It should start to show up in next week’s report.

Of course, there has been a lot of talk about the drought’s impact on food supply and food prices especially considering some drought developing in a few other places in the world. It is at these times that I give thanks for technological progress in agriculture and free trade. Famine was much more likely in the past because people did not have as good of access to food from around the world. The yield of food per acre was also much less. That is why we will probably not see conditions as bad as the 1930s (in the U.S.) repeat themselves today. The prices for food will rise, but severe and persistent shortages (over the course of several years) will probably not occur. As an asied, I wonder if the price of corn will rise high enough for people (well, mostly politicians) to stop supporting grain ethanol production in the U.S. If people start going hungry, I’ll bet grain ethanol production will shut down pretty quick. Ethanol air pollution would disappear pretty quick as well.

Back to the drought and food prices, the trends that are not working in our favor are population growth and urban sprawl. Back in the 1930s, the population of the U.S. was between 120 and 130 million. Now the population is a bit over 300 million. For the world, the number of mouths to feed has risen from a little over 2 billion in the 1930s to about 7 billion today. Seeing this staggering increase in the population makes me even more amazed at the progress in food production that has kept up with population growth (thank you Norman Borlaug). Of course, this means we probably have little tolerance for widespread drought.

Another potential problem is that so much arable land has been taken over by urban sprawl. Total farm acres have declined significantly in the last few years. In the U.S. I am constantly appalled by all of the prime farmland that is being paved over for sub-divisions, freeways, parking lots, and box stores. At least some areas are reverting back to productive use – such as in Detroit. This discussion dovetails nicely with the blog entry from yesterday and a great comment left by Anthony. His observation of younger people in the Twin Cities is that they cannot see the reasons to live out in a far flung suburb anymore.

They (younger people) seem to be ok with mass transit as well. Which is a good thing! Cars are an expensive hassle and liability. If you live close to work you don’t need a car. Nowadays there are more ride sharing and car sharing companies springing up every day (I have profiled RelayRides and ZipCar before). Now carpooling.com is coming to the U.S.

If you don’t have a family why live in a big house in the suburbs? It is expensive and you will end up spending a significant percentage of your life paying the bank, commuting, and stuck in traffic. I think the changing attitudes of younger generations flows along with the change in economics. In the industrial age, no one wanted to live next to a power plant or manufacturing plant. People who grew up mostly on farms, but then ended up working in the city, had a desire to get back into the country (in a sense) and away from work/pollution, hence the suburban sprawl. Now that we are in the information age, it seems younger people want to be close to information. They grew up in the suburbs and exurbs but now want to be in the “action” which is more toward the urban center. What cultural trends have you noticed? Anything that points toward a more sustainable future?

Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Ag Weather, Drought, Pollution

Other than today being Halloween, it is also the day that the U.N. has designated as “7 billionth” person day. Read this past blog post for some of the details behind counting the population and why the 7 billionth person might not arrive until next year or much later. I understand the pressure put upon the U.N. for predicting (based on models) when the 7 billionth person will be born, but mainstream media sources are taking it too far, saying that it will be exactly today and that the person will be born in India. The fact is no one knows for sure how many people are on the planet and who will be the 7 billionth person or even where that person will be born. The date, the number, and the place, are a crap-shoot, essentially made up. To satisfy political and media pressure, someone (the U.N.) had to put a date on it.

Even though we don’t know the exact time or even if the world will ever reach 7 billion (a very remote possibility), we do know that 7 billion is a lot. It is a big number for a mammal on the earth. We basically dominate the planet. Here is a good article that puts some of it into perspective. I think there are enough people on the planet. If the population growth rate continues to decline and the population is lower in a couple of decades, I would be just fine with that. If the population continues to grow, hopefully we will be innovative enough to find ways to support a larger population and maintain a high quality of life.

One thing I have written about is how the American style of life (build, build build, expand, expand, expand), is probably not sustainable in the present day, much less the future. The Concrete Life, is a good blog post to review these thoughts. In the Concrete Life I brought to life the idea that we can no longer afford to support urban sprawl. Just this weekend I found someone one else who has written about this topic and presented it in a more graphical format. Check it out here. It might bring the financial aspects of sprawl into more focus. Interestingly, this presentation focuses on Minnesota (like I did) and shows how new infrastructure projects will cost much more than the tax-base can support.

Smog in Beijing

Not only can the American build, build, build, economy not be supported by current GDP, it can also lead to pollution problems. Luckily, here in the U.S. we got through our major pollution problems back in the late 1800s through the middle of the 1900s. Almost every metric of pollution in the air, water, and soil has gotten better over the last couple of decades. The types of pollution we deal with nowadays – light, noise, sprawl – is much less toxic than in the past. This is not the case in India and China. These countries are growing more wealthy and unfortunately seem to be following the American path. I would never deny anyone (Chinese or otherwise) their dream house, dream life, dream property/land, or business, I just hope they learn from our mistakes and don’t end up with millions of acres of unsustainable sprawl. It doesn’t look good right now. India and China have some of the worst air and water pollution in the world right now, including some of the worst mercury pollution. In just the last couple of days the U.S. embassy in Beijing declared the air hazardous for human health. The smog was so thick it caused flight cancellations and highways to be shut down.

Have a happy Halloween! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Pollution, Weather and Health

It is that time of the week for the US Drought Monitor update. Once again it is pretty good news for Wisconsin. Even though we did not have a drop of rain for the first 10 days of October, the abnormally dry conditions only expanded by about 17% and we don’t have any “official” drought. With the heavy rain that occurred yesterday we will likely see the “abnormally dry” area shrink again next week. Of course, now that we are past the growing season, it is not all that critical if we have adequate rainfall, especially since we have had a little surplus this year. In fact, even if we did not have another drop of rain for the entire year, we would still have about normal precipitation for 2011 here in Wausau. So far this year we have received 32.25 inches of precipitation and the normal for Wausau is 32.41 inches. If this looks different that past years, it is because we got an updated set of normals this year based on the temp and precip statistics from 1981 through 2010.

The worst drought conditions continue in the far southern part of the country. Although, things did get a little better in Texas and Oklahoma due to some recent rain.

_______________________________

Following up on the AGW chatter/discussion from the last couple days of blog posts, here is another story that brightened my day: The world’s 7 billionth person will be born on October 31st of this year. Considering what I wrote yesterday, you might be a little perplexed by my sunny disposition. The good part about the story is not that the U.N. expects 7 billion people on the planet by October 31st, it is that many demographers do not think we will hit 7 billion until next year and there is even an extreme scenario where we would not hit that mark until 2020. Many demographers claim that the U.N. is under political pressure to put an exact date on the “7 Billionth Person”. Even the U.N. says there margin of error would allow for the population mark to not be hit until sometime next year. So while it might sound bad on the surface, there is much uncertainty. What the U.N. is n0t accounting for very well is the dramatic drop in the fertility rate among women for a few decades now in the developed world. I wonder if the markets and debt-ridden economies of the world are projecting the reality that population growth has slowed dramatically and that just maybe we are not going to reach the 9-10 figure
(by 2050) that the U.N. has publicized (and that the IPCC uses to figure future anthropogenic global warming scenarios). Sometimes markets move mysteriously and can only be understood in retrospect. Only a few years down the road does it become obvious. What might be happening now is that all of the developed countries that have huge social welfare programs are running out of money because there are not enough new people to pay for the promised benefits (just like how a ponzi scheme usually collapses). In the markets, maybe the malaise is due to the “invisible hand” not foreseeing as much traditional growth (housing starts, roads, expansion, etc…) as what linear-thinking economists have been “trained” to see.

This is all ok with me. I think the world has enough people. I would rather see people focus on other metrics of prosperity other than more roads, more skyscrapers, more houses, more suburbs, more strip malls, more  gas stations, etc… Let’s start focusing on other things.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Drought, Environment, Pollution

Earlier this week I mentioned how the trip back from my fishing vacation was somewhat ruined when I heard on the radio that the Times Atlas of the World had wildly exaggerated the amount of ice that had melted off of Greenland. That wasn’t the only thing that bugged me. I also heard some financial news and once again it was trumpeting a rise in housing starts during the past month – as something positive for the “economy”. I did a little reading and found some other articles talking about the housing “problem” here in the U.S. I am flabbergasted that there are by some accounts over 10 million empty and/or for sale homes in the U.S. and we are still building a half million new ones every month!

Now why would I be upset to hear that more houses are being built – that the housing sector might be turning around? I could go through the entire argument again but it would be better if you read this past blog post. The gist of it is that we should start looking to other metrics for judging how good the “economy” is. The main theme throughout the last couple of centuries (particularly here in the U.S.) is build build build! If there is more building, traveling, shipping, flying, and consuming going on then the economy will be “good”. If we aren’t out there paving over more of nature, then the economy is “bad”. I am saying that I have had enough with sprawl. I have had enough with expansion for the economy’s sake. If we want to have a better and cleaner place to live we should start focusing on different metrics to judge the health of the “economy”. We should stop judging our economic well being on growth alone. How about focusing more on quality instead of quantity? We can still enjoy great progress without constantly building more roads, more houses, more box stores, and more parking lots.

So what would be a better metric than housing starts, or GDP, or infrastructure expansion? What about health? If the aggregate health of the population increased every year or lifespans increased every year, wouldn’t that be a sign that things are good – even if we never build another freeway? How about energy efficiency or productivity? If we get more use out of every unit of energy year over year, isn’t that progress – even if we never build another sub-division with cookie-cutter houses? Some people have even suggested happiness. If happiness could be reliably measured and it increased every year, wouldn’t that mean we have a good “economy”?

I am not sure at this time what the exact solution is but I am happy to see that someone agreed with me the last time I wrote on this subject. Thanks for the comment! I am also glad to see more websites that are pushing this issue. Many of them mix leftist politics into the discussion a little too much for my taste but here is one that I recently stumbled across – PostCarbon.org. One of the contributors to that site has written a book called “The End of Growth“. While I don’t agree that we have reached hard limits on how many resources we are able to use (a counter argument to Peak Oil here), I do subscribe to the thought of re-evaluating what is important to a society as an alternative to just building more houses to make things better. Also, to say the there will be no “growth” in the future, is not the best way to frame the issue. Growth can come in many forms and I wouldn’t want to live in a future with no progress.

Sadly, the “jobs” bill coming out of the government right now boils down to building more roads, a tried-n-true but worn out and environmentally disastrous way to put people back to work. Hopefully some dissenting voices will be heard.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment, Nature, Peak Oil, Pollution

The latest US Drought Monitor has been released and there is good and bad news within. Here in Wisconsin our drought situation improved slightly from last week. The driest areas of the state are still in the northeast and in the far south. Here in central Wisconsin we have received just enough rainfall to keep us out of the abnormally dry category but we have only had 0.38 inches in the last 11 days. If we do not have much rain tomorrow (40% chance of storms) or over the weekend (slight chance of showers), then more of the state might end up in the abnormally dry category by next week. I apologize for not providing some drought pictures in the blog today, there is still some trouble with uploading pictures from our computer. Our tech department is apparently working on the problem, but no eta on a fix. You will have to probe the links provided in today’s post in order to get the proper visuals.

The bad news in the Drought Monitor is once again in the southern part of the country. The exceptional drought continues over Texas, Oklahoma, much of Louisiana, and New Mexico. Everyone in this region of the country is keeping their fingers crossed that La Nina does not develop once again this winter because that could mean an even longer drought. In contrast to most years, I suspect some folks are even hoping for some tropical storms or hurricanes to head their way. The exceptional drought in these areas have garnered a lot of attention but believe it or not there have been some U.S. droughts in the past that have been even more extreme, and I am not just talking about the dust bowl years of the 1930s. One of the longest periods of no measurable rain was almost 3 years in San Bernardino county of southern California. No measurable rain fell in the county from August 16th of 1909 until May 6th 1912 – 994 days. Another dry spell began in October of 1912 that ended up lasting alomst 800 days. Talk about a drought!

It is not that bad in the desert southwest this year, but the bad news is that the drought is increasing a little in Arizona. If there is one region of the country that lives more on edge over water resources, it is the desert southwest. Over the last few decades, the population in this region of the country has gone up by many millions. Water is becoming a valuable and scarce resource. Of particular concern is Lake Mead. If the lake gets any lower, it will not be able to produce electricity for the region. Here is a detailed article explaining the conundrum. Scroll to the bottom of the picture showing how Lake Mead has changed from the mid 80s up until now. Wow! Lake Mead seems to be going the way of the Aral Sea. The one bright spot in the situation is the fact the the main watersheds that feed Lake Mead are to the north – the Green River and the Colorado River. These rivers have plenty of water this year.

This all relates to the issues I have been covering lately – the hope for a more efficient and less polluted future – the re-definition of economic “growth” (see here and here). As long as energy was cheap  and Lake Mead stayed full (to produce electricity and water resources), then it made economic sense to build in the desert. Perhaps the expansion went too far. I have been to Phoenix on several occasions and it definitely fits the definition of urban sprawl, making the city hotter and more polluted as the years have gone by. This of course creates a positive feedback loop where hotter weather from the urban heat island effect creates the need for more air conditioning, which adds to the pollution and ambient heat. Building grand freeways, parking lots, and sub-divisions fueled the over-reliance on the automobile for the functioning of our society. In a related development, the car-economy has even produced the ridiculous situation where more of our corn crop (food) is being used produce ethanol than is going to feed cattle and chickens. (At least a few more people are starting to call for an end to the ethanol mandate).

Of course, there are some positive trends, as I highlighted yesterday. More people are moving back into the city and leaving the suburbs and exurbs. This presents some challenges to maintain more densely populated urban centers, but it also presents opportunities to live more efficiently. Here is a recent article discussing the real estate implications of the demographic trend (disclosure: I have no connection with the author or any financial/political interest in any company mentioned in the article. I just wanted to highlight the fact that people are moving back to the city and it is a bit of evidence to bolster this trend)

With all of this recent blogging seemingly “bashing” cars, you might think I am on a crusade. This is not the case. While I do bike and walk whenever I can, I do own 2 cars and I greatly appreciate this convenience. I wouldn’t want to do away with cars or freeways (unless we had some better option easily available). I use my car to go to the same places as everyone else – grocery shopping, visiting relatives, vacation, etc… The theme I am trying to highlight is that perhaps here in the U.S. we took the love of the automobile a bit too far. Maybe too much former farmland and greenland has been paved over. Sustaining the sprawl in the U.S. gets tougher and more expensive every year. Maybe it is time to dial it back a little.

Have a fine Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Drought, Nature, Pollution